RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 15, 1996 relating to the assessment year, 1980 -81.
(2.) APPLICANT is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tractors. The factory of the applicant was situated at Faridabad in the State of Haryana and from there the goods have been despatched to various States. Assessment proceedings had been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, on the basis of the information received from the check -post that the applicant have obtained 109 form XXXIV from the various entry check -posts, but could not surrender the said form XXXIV at the exit check -post. Assessing authority treated the sale of the goods relating to such alleged form XXXIV within the State of U.P. by the applicant and, accordingly, estimated taxable turnover at Rs. 1,34,41,900. Applicant filed appeal against the assessment order before the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, which was dismissed. Applicant further filed second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, which was allowed vide order dated September 22, 1993 and the case was remanded back to the assessing officer with the direction to frame the assessment order afresh after confronting the applicant with the original form XXXTV or panji 3 duly signed by the person -in -charge of the vehicle. It was also directed that the complete name and address of the driver/owner of the vehicle should be provided. It is alleged that after the order of the Tribunal remanding back the case to the assessing officer, applicant filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, and stated that none of the alleged form XXXIV relates to the applicant and the applicant be provided with original form XXXIV or panji 3 before drawing any adverse inference against the applicant. It was also stated that the Trade Tax Tribunal had directed the assessing officer to confront the applicant with original form XXXTV and panji 3, but the same was not provided. It was further alleged that inspite of the various reminders, assessing authority had not confronted with the original form XXXTV or panji 3 duly signed by the person -in -charge of the vehicle, but furnished extract of panji 3 which did not bear the signature of the person -in -charge nor it bears any bill or invoice number nor it mentions the chassis number of the tractor. Photostat copy of the panji 3 have been filed as annexure 3 to the revision. It is alleged that the applicant filed an application before the assessing authority stating therein that the registration number mentioned in panji 3 contains the permanent registration number issued by the Regional Transport Offices of Delhi/Haryana/Punjab, etc., while tractors were sent by the applicant with the temporary registration number ranging from A, B and C.
(3.) ASSISTANT Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, by its order dated March 30, 1995 had passed the assessment order afresh and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 65 lakhs and levied the tax at Rs. 4,18,000. First appeal filed by the applicant against the assessment order was dismissed. Second appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order.;